Four students murdered at University of Idaho *ARREST*

1668706399688.png


Got my Masters degree from here. :(

Killer who stabbed 4 Idaho students to death still at large​

The killer — or killers — who stabbed four University of Idaho students to death remained at large Tuesday, prompting many students to leave the campus in the idyllic small town despite police assurances that there was no imminent risk to the community.

So many students had left the scenic tree-lined campus in Moscow, Idaho, by Tuesday that university officials said a candlelight vigil scheduled for the next day would instead be held after the Thanksgiving break.

The students, all close friends, were found dead in an off-campus rental home around noon on Sunday, and officials said they likely were killed several hours earlier. Latah County Coroner Cathy Mabbutt told the Spokane, Washington-based television station KXLY that her preliminary investigation showed the students were stabbed to death. There is no indication that substance use was involved in the deaths, Mabbutt said.
 
Last edited:
Click to expand...
GrandmaBear said:
I agree. It is like they are tone deaf and on a mission. It's a building. It's something that could show a jury if they choose to exactly how big, what the layout and distance, etc. is as he went through that house killing people. Not to mention the way cases and defenses go nowadays, yes, evidence and maybe a need to go back to do something because of some defense b.s. to prove otherwiise.

These were THEIR students. This was NOT their asset previously. If one can call itt an asset. What is the need? They should want justice for their students instead of continually trying to demolish something that tthen can never be reconstrcuted. What's their real intent here? They need to just stop, hold the "asset" they were GIVEN and in time they can do with it as they wish.

I'm sure there are bigger concerns they need to deal with than some gift of a murder property they accepted. Smh.
Click to expand...
They want people to forget about this as soon as possible.
 

BY KEVIN FIXLER
UPDATED DECEMBER 18, 2023 5:54 PM

The Latah County judge in the University of Idaho student murder case threw out all attempts by the defense to toss the grand jury’s indictment of defendant Bryan Kohberger, shutting the door on delaying a future trial on those grounds.

Judge John Judge of Idaho’s 2nd Judicial District issued his written decisions late Friday to deny the defense team’s request to dismiss the indictment on five legal grounds, including that the prosecution committed misconduct because it allegedly withheld evidence from the grand jurors. Judge’s rulings were published to Idaho’s court website Monday morning.

In one decision, Judge dismissed the defense’s request to discard the indictment on four separate arguments — each debated during a closed-door hearing in October to protect confidential information, as grand juries are an intentionally secretive judicial process. The defense had alleged prosecutorial misconduct, bias from the local grand jury, use of improper evidence and a lack of sufficient evidence to indict Kohberger in the killing of four college students.

<snip>

Judge noted in the order that his ruling on these four grounds will remain sealed but provided the results of his decision “for the public’s benefit.” He also acknowledged in his Friday court filings having reviewed sealed grand jury transcripts, recorded audio and jury questionnaires to help make his decisions. The defense has access to that same information, he wrote.
 
Whatsnext said:
They want people to forget about this as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's all PR and deafness to human emotion or anything other than the blemish on the U's appearance, reputation, etc. They fall short however of accepting the murder property as a gift, why accept it if such a problem. Typical.

IMO for me this would make this school LESS worthy or of a choice for my children to go to.

Don't Ethan's siblings still attend or students still protest because they should.

Hard to say if this home will still be needed but there is absolutely no desperate reason to demolish it. Too bad the former owner didn't gift it to the families but the U instead. Go figure.
 
Kimster said:
Agreed. No one is going to have closure if Justice isn’t complete.
Click to expand...
I don't think the U has any guilt in this case but if they want to get people wondeing otherwise, this behavior does it. Their repeated attempts and almost desperation to take the home down. The U area known party home. They need to sit down and shut up. And I guess the former owner should have given it to the families even though it would be bittersweet to them, at least they'd have control of the EVIDENCE! Why didn't he? Maybe not tax deductible in that case.

Honestly this should be yelled about more than it is being yelled about for anyone with time. It stopped it the last time, when they wanted to almost IMMEDIATELY do this to these families. Tone deaf and dumb, no sympathy and definitely no empathy.

Leave it until the case of the perp of YOUR OWN student victims is tried, and concluded, you IDIOTS.

They may want people to forget but for me, I'd NEVER send a child there to a U who cares so little about this or these, their own students and their families. I'd be more apt to send one there if they did the right thing and LISTENED and did not do this. Dumbarses.
 
Mel70 said:
I was looking up an example. "Anthony Sowell". He was convicted in "July 2011". The house was destroyed "December 2011". It was infested with roaches, Rats, The roof had caved in causing electrical damage. The neighborhood wanted it gone for a long time. So in this case I can't see how it is allowed.
Click to expand...
Well the U does own it. So short of a court order it is theirs to do with as they like. Thanks to it being gifted to them. I don't think there's any law against it. But there's no need and if they truly care about PR and attendance at their U, I think it's a stupid and uncaring choice.

The Closs house was taken down too, AFTER conviction. That's up to the owners imo, once such is investigated, searched and that is done, they aren't held by the court.

Sadly this is about human decency. The U and its leaders have none.
 
So I saw one yesterday by News Nation that I'm not linking intentionally but they were referencing some other talking head attorney who said this and so News Nation did a headline of such that Kohberger has or may have an ineffective counsel claim/appeal and that his attorney should NEVER agree to the crime house being demolished and she did and oh boy, now he can claim such. All because his attorney agreed to with no argument the demolishing of the house. So they brought on a talking head/attorney to talk of the same that what IF something comes up at trial they can only disprove by being able to go back to the home...??? Kohberger can easily do ineffective counsel appeal they claim as she agreed to get rid of evidence, etc.

I sat there and thought what if both sides both confirmed they had access and got everything they could want from the home and tonight I am watching an STS that is saying the very same thing, they did do their examinations, etc., etc. and both sides are okay with,not fighting the demo, had their access, agreed each was done and that it is no big deal and they are bound to it.

I think News Nation and its talking heads and the one who first posed this don't deserve a link, HOWEVER, I do think nowadays and the b.s. and games that go on and in the name of justice, what is U's PROBLEM with this GIFT? LEAVE IT. DUH. You are the only ones pushing it, you never owned it right and aren't responsible right for what happened?! LEAVE IT and have some sympathy and interest in justice. An eyesore? A reminder of the U party times? And murders? Well then buy a giant damned tarp or something. I also don't think it is necessarily a bad reminder of don't party too hardy with open doors to all to other students. I am not victim blaming there nor mean it in that way, I am just saying, quit your b.s. about money and PR and give a **** about your students and guiding them and saying it to the U!!

I actually don't think it should be demolished until case done but I don't think the talking head b.s. about ineffective counsel IF both sides have had the access they want should be the case either if both agree they are done with it, neither should be allowed to come back with it or the other side fight it with anything but what they've obtained and "signed" off on.. Attorneys definitely are not all the same caliber and talking heads on news shows often aren't the primo. I am SURE the U would like this forgotten but too bad. Even if the home is not needed, show some decency!! Do what your dead students' families want!! It was a GIFT and one the owner was probably glad to get rid of.

Maybe I live in a dream world even with my cynicism but I know I would be far more apt to send a child to this university if I saw them doing the right thing, giving a sh*(t and maintaining the home for as long as their dead students' families want or at least until the case is concluded. How they are acting though would have me never considering it. They didn't do this but at as though they did on wanting to demolish a gift of a murder house. They could have, after all, refused it...
 
Cousin Dupree said:
They have a computer model of the house. However, that doesn't give you a perspective of what the actual house was like to be in.
Click to expand...
I agree. Darn it. Not again agreeing with you NOOOO!!

But nothing is like being at the scene seeing the walls, size, etc, proximity of rooms, acoustics even and how close neighbors are and more.

Both prosecution and defense have basically signed off and I'd take that to mean both have done they feel needed but more than one attorney out there is saying the defense should never sign off on such and that it is ineffective counsel should they need it, etc. (the house) to dispute anything and so on. I don't go much for talking heads on such shows but Ihey are attorneys. I don't think it is necessary to take it down and I don''t think the chance should be taken. I also heard it said there is no reason a prosecution should EVER agree to such or not argue it.

There are several cases where they did a tour of crime scene. I heard a podcaster cite four off the top of their head the other day and they are all crimes we know of. I am drawing a blank right now but Murdaugh was only one. And those were just a couple of examples. It isn't as uncommon as thought.

Not a dam* thing is hurting the U and again they didn't have to accept it.

I'm of the same belief as I have been each time they've attempted this and they are tone deaf and uncaring of how the parents feel.

I've also seen, many of us have, cases where evidence was gone back for well after the fact. Frazee was one. Which child one was it the refrigerator not long ago and it was long after the fact?

My opinion of this U and whoever directs this or votes it couldn't get any lower.

And it isn't just one set of parents that feel this way, I heard that on something the other night. Maybe the News Nation one, can't recall. I haven't watched much recently so it probably was.
 
RoundPeg said:
I'm more worried about the prosecution proving beyond a reasonable doubt. I do think they've got a fairly strong case.
Click to expand...
I don't see much doubt in this one at all and especially not reasonable doubt. And that's just on what we know, there is much we don't. Imo they worked hard on this and rushed nothing but got all they needed in fairly short order and I'm sure the tying together of it all and even more continues.

I'm also not finding his attorney quite as good as she was made out to be imo. So far I find the judge very good and the prosecution ready to fight back and hard with good foundation when needed. I do not like both sides agreement on the fact the house can go though.

For trial purposes and at least until conviction certainly is one thing but I'm always on the side of victims and families even though I have not always agreed with Kaylee's dad that all he has said or done is wise, still I am that way. And they aren't the only family who does not want this done before trial. That's enough for me. And imo the prosecution should be listening to them. And so should the U.

I don't see any way BK is found innocent. His attorney has tried an unusual thing or to like with the grand jury indictment and failed. And imo rightfully so. And whatever with genealogy and/or way they tracked the DNA.

Anyhow, I think we will see a conviction and more evidence than we know of in detail anyhow.

We don't generally agree or at least many times don't and I guess we don't here.

Taking that house down is not going to change what happened near the U. They are acting like any big entity that cares less other than about their attendance, etc. A memorial even marks the same thing, that a tragedy occurred, it doesn't make it all roses and hummingbirds and butterflies. It still just marks deaths and a tragedy that occurred there.

Personally? I think if such an issue they should gift it to the families and I think the former owners should have too but maybe he couldn't write that off. The families can then in time sell, tear down, build a garden, whatever, build secure housing and put the rents towards scholarships or anything else.

It may not be the biggest problem that is going on in this world or in any case but if it bothers the victims' families to take it down before trial it should stay. They may have every legal right to take it down but i don't care. These were THEIR students and these are THEIR families. It's morally wrong not to listen to them imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,006
Messages
240,525
Members
965
Latest member
tanya
Back
Top Bottom